Pages of interest

News that matters...

Loading...

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

I was NOT a Birther, but what the......

By George:

Not quite two months ago I wrote a tongue-in-cheek post about an email I was forwarding for your perusal about President Obama admitting that he was not born in America. I forwarded the email and video and was hoping to make you smile. Then I went back to more serious business.

Since that time, due to the prodding by Donald Trump, the White House decided to slap down all "birther" talk and released the Official Birth Certificate on the whitehouse.gov site. Great, I sighed, now we can discuss more important topics, because now we have the definitive proof that Obama was born in America. Brilliant logistical move on Obama's part.

At least that's what I thought at the time.Like millions of other Americans, I clicked on the White House Blog page containing the certificate photo, and said to myself that I guess this will settle it. The W.H. would not post something that would not be authentic, because that would be stupid. With that I returned to more important business.

O.K., I said to myself, I'll check it out, have a good laugh, and go on. Except, when I started watching the video and then started verifying what he was saying, I started kicking myself. You see, I should have done this investigation myself, since I myself am an expert at the Graphic Arts, and I use the Adobe products for production. I quickly logged on to the White House site containing the Birth Certificate, found the PDF link, and downloaded the PDF document. At his point I had nothing more to do than to verify what the voice on the video was saying.

Should I be shocked to find that what he was saying on the video was the absolute truth? This Adobe PDF document that the White House posted as the Obama REAL Birth Certificate is nothing more than a bad FORGERY. You are all welcome to repeat what the voice on the video is showing you, and prove it for yourself.

It was stupid of me to trust the White House, but my logic dictated that they wouldn't be so stupid. I guess that logic falls short when you are dealing with Obama. And to think that I could have been the first one to expose this.

The question is, so now - WHAT? I need your ideas and input.

As a postscript, after posting this, I received this link to a WND article that explains what I have explained here and in my comment, but goes into much more detail. Check it out here.

5 comments:

The video has long since been debunked. Seriously. The guy who did it is a biotech student (Albert Renshaw) -and he has nothing to lose by posting the OCR video. However, he was immediately countered by JC Tremblay, who is an Adobe expert and trainer, and has a long-standing respected reputation - and he had this to say: "Tremblay explained that the scanner optical character recognition (OCR) software attempts to translate characters or words in a photograph into text. He said the layers cited by the doubters shows that software at work - and nothing more." (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/) ~ His Adobe profile is here: http://groups.adobe.com/people/39326/profile ...so let's move on now.

This is a non-issue. And it only serves as a distraction from the very real issues that we, as a nation, need to focus on.

If you read my post, you may have noted that I said that I am an expert in this field. I would not have said what I said if I didn't know what I was talking about. Having said that, I will try to convince you that I know what I am saying. If you have downloaded the PDF as I have, you can look at it and follow along even without access to Adobe tools.

To rebut your expert's rebuttal, I have scanned lots of documents and have even used OCR (Optical Character Recognition) software. Scanners do nothing more than break the image that they are scanning into tiny pixels that will form the image that the eye will see and interpret. Depending on how you scan the image, it will either be B&W, Grayscale or color, and the pixels will look differently for each of these scans. When you use a software to create characters and images, you can have these either be anti-aliased or not. What you will NOT have is a scan that will mix the different kinds of scans in one image.

The purpose of the OCR software is to turn a scanned image into editable word processing text. This means that the output of this scan will be a document that you can then manipulate as any other typed document. What the OCR software will NOT do is to disassemble a document into different patches and mismatching parts. If you have a scanner and OCR software combination that produces an image that is a patchwork of different styles, toss it into the trash because that's what it is.

Now look at the PDF file supplied. It looks fine when you open it up, but when you start to enlarge it, you will notice that some parts are different from others. To guide you to where you should look, please watch to the video I supplied, but you don't have to worry about the layers. Just look at the image as supplied, but enlarge it. The differences that he points out are striking, and I assure you that there is no software in existence that will do this automatically to a scanned document. If you need further assurances, please email me (unmitigatedtruth@yahoo.com) and I will elaborate either in an email or if you want I can call you.

In addition to that, the security paper backing of the document was not in use back then, and if what we have is a copy that was printed on a security paper and then scanned in, how would any software separate this background as a unique layer? The only way you would have this pattern on its own layer is if a person put it there deliberately. There are many other logical problems, but I have already gone on too long. If there is a demand for it, perhaps I can do a separate post on how to analyze these kinds of documents.

Prosey (and others), I have to add that I have done these kinds of image manipulations many times (nothing illegal), but I have never done anything this poorly.

I already did all that. I, unlike you, am not claiming expert status. I'm not an Obama "fan" -- lest we confuse this issue. I'm supportive of some things, not so much of others...but while I'm not the expert you are in this capacity, I did my own homework (I appreciate the offer - forgive me, my in-laws are in town from overseas for the next 3 weeks, so my interactions are infrequent at best - I just happen to still be awake right the moment). I can say, looking at a friends birth cert (from 2 years after Obama was born), it matches up. Comparative.

The birth certificate nonsense HAS to stop. It is a tempest in a teapot. To continue focusing on it is an accession to the forces (beyond party lines) that want to continue building dissent among the population. George, you're SO much smarter than that. Ignore them. Let's focus on what actually really matters. Jobs. Economy. Bringing our men and women home. Education. Etc.

I just re-read my comment here (over coffee) and I need to clarify two things, lest my intended meaning gets lost. The friend to whom I'm referring was also born in Hawaii (still lives there, I met her while I lived there). The other point of note is that, even if in the 60s the paper you're commenting to did not have the security stuff embedded in it, if you contact the Department of Vital Statistics (regardless of what state) and request a certified copy of your birth certificate, they print it out on the paper that is used *today*...so the argument that the "original" birth certificate not bearing those markers back in the 60s is as irrelevant as the "Kenya didn't become a country until 196- whatever" (since Kenya had been called Kenya by the English since the 1800s). All of these things that Orly Taitz has been making noise about is precisely that -- just noise. :)

One has to ask the logical question then. Who is this guy? Where did he come from? how did he ascend to positions of power so quickly given their economic conditions at birth? how did he manage to fund his ivory league education and subsequently travel around the world and why, given the constitutional requirements of properly vetting all candidates to the Presidency of the United States not just by Congress at the federal but at the state level by party representatives was he not vetted? How'd that work out? ..and why has he gone to such extravagant extents to conceal ALL of his records that speak of his life's history? to what end? from birth, to education, to who his best man was - we know nothing!Having said that and still having the Constitutional requirements in place why is he a viable candidate again for the Democrats since you would think he STILL has to "qualify" himself for the post? It's because he's obviously NOT elected but appointed by others.Hate to sound overtly cynical but we're well beyong the "looking glass" on this issue and we should agree by now that it would be inherently dangerous to be THAT naive??It's not just noise. The birth certificate is actually a forgery which is monumentally worse than a concealed document that cannot be validated by others. Anybody trying to supress dialogue about this matter needs to be seriously scrutinized given the gravity of our condition.He needs to be immediately removed and held in contempt with some massive ramifications and we need to immediately reverse all policies instituted by this non_President individual.The time to be adults about this is now. Please quit shrinking about the obvious.